re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by Decatur on 11/15/12 at 8:39 pm to LSUgusto

quote:After that hearing, Rep. Adam Schiff echoed the president's comments on Rice, saying those "claiming that the U.N. ambassador had some different information ... are either unfamiliar with the facts or willfully ignoring them."

The California Democrat said the ambassador got the same assessment as lawmakers that the violence in Benghazi began with "a spontaneous protest that evolved into something militant."

"We were given a very early assessment of events in Benghazi, and we were given an unclassified version that we could share with the public. That unclassified version turned out to be inaccurate, as we found out later," Schiff said.

It was not clear if Rice's comments came up at the corresponding Senate hearing, though Feinstein did say, "We had a good back and forth, and it was not always the easiest thing for everybody."

Then-CIA Director David Petraeus -- who is set to testify Friday before the House and Senate intelligence committees, one week after resigning citing an extramarital affair -- did develop unclassified talking points in the days after the incident, a source who has spoken to him said.

But he had no direct involvement in comments made by Rice, which may have used some of Petraeus' information but were otherwise distinct, the source said.

Petraeus is testifying because he wants to clear up "a lot of misrepresentations of what he told Congress initially," said the source, who is directly familiar with the ex-CIA chief's analysis of the situation.

Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack

He knew "almost immediately" that Ansar al-Sharia, a loosely connected radical Islamist group, was responsible for the attack, as suggested by multiple sources and video from the scene, said the source.

At the same time, a stream of intelligence -- including about 20 distinct reports -- also emerged indicating that a brewing furor over the anti-Islamic video preceded the attack.

The CIA eventually disproved the reports that film-related protests had anything to do with the attack. But this didn't happen until after Petraeus' initial briefings to lawmakers, in which he discussed all the possibilities, the source said.

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by Decatur on 11/15/12 at 8:56 pm to wavebreaker

quote:(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- A congressional investigation viewed video Thursday that was recorded by security cameras the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The first video of the attack was captured by cell phones. But it took about 10 more days for the FBI to get its hands on video taken by security cameras at the consulate. That classified video, shown to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, answers some of the many questions surrounding the attack.

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Sept. 11 attack -- which killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador -- was planned by terrorists or the result of a mob angered by an internet movie ridiculing Islam.

A U.S. intelligence official said the first video shows no sign the assault arose -- as first thought -- out of a demonstration. But it also indicates the attack, though intentional, was not well planned.

The video makes clear the attackers did not know the layout of the compound. The attack lasted about an hour and ended with the consulate in flames, a scene captured by a surveillance drone overhead.

The surviving Americans retreated to a CIA safe house about a mile away, where they continued to take fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.

quote:After another hour, the shooting stopped. For four hours, no shots were fired, giving a rescue team flown in from Tripoli time to make its way to the annex.

Ten minutes after the rescuers arrived, a second attack began, this time with mortars. That attack was also captured on video -- both by security cameras and a drone overhead -- and it shows a more organized and deliberate assault than the one on the consulate.

Intercepted cell phone calls and text messages from that night indicate that some of those who attacked the consulate were inspired in part by televised scenes of protesters storming the American embassy in Cairo, enraged over an anti-Muslim video running on the internet. Others seemed to have nothing more in mind than looting.

That first attack created an opportunity for the second attack -- the one on the annex. Whether it was planned that way all along is not clear.

U.S. officials say the four-hour lull in the fighting gave the attackers time to bring in more firepower in the form of mortars. They fired five rounds: the first two missed, while the next three hit.

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by baybeefeetz on 11/15/12 at 9:05 pm to Decatur

quote:Intercepted cell phone calls and text messages from that night indicate that some of those who attacked the consulate were inspired in part by televised scenes of protesters storming the American embassy in Cairo, enraged over an anti-Muslim video running on the internet. Others seemed to have nothing more in mind than looting.

THis has been reported from the absolute beginning, right, about the text and call intercepts?

So both can be true. It can be somewhat true that some of the attackers were inspired by the video, and it can be true that the White House was trying to avoid saying that AQ was involved.

What I find puzzling about this is how so many people seem to believe (white house included) that whether these people were affiliated with AQ or were terrorists makes a fricking bit of difference in the mind of the average American.

Al Qaeda can be on the run and still strike. Anybody with a brain knows that.

So if the White House tried to "cover" up that it was a "terrorist" attack and people give a shite about that, they're all stupid.

I'm more concerned about the guys who died at this point. What is the evidence of negligence with respect to their deaths.

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by LSUgusto on 11/15/12 at 9:19 pm to Decatur

quote:That unclassified version turned out to be inaccurate

OK. They let an inaccurate story fly, while a more accurate version of events was downplayed. That's called deception, Decatur. No other way to slice it.

quote:The CIA eventually disproved the reports that film-related protests had anything to do with the attack

Again... the CIA was able to "eventually" disprove the film-related protest story, but that's the talking point they let rip. They kept quiet a more provable conclusion known about "almost immediately" of it being a terrorist attack.

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by Decatur on 11/15/12 at 9:28 pm to LSUgusto

quote:Again... the CIA was able to "eventually" disprove the film-related protest story, but that's the talking point they let rip. They kept quiet a more provable conclusion known about "almost immediately" of it being a terrorist attack.

Don't conflate the issue of whether there was a protest in Benghazi and the issue of whether the video and protests elsewhere was a catalyst for the attack. You know it can be an attack (without a protest before) and have the video as a factor at the same time, right?

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by LSUgusto on 11/15/12 at 9:38 pm to Decatur

quote:You know it can be an attack (without a protest before) and have the video as a factor at the same time, right?

It could. But, the problem with the "spontaneous" fairy tale is all the requests for more security, reported warnings of an attack, actual previous attacks, and growing concerns about jihadis making threats on the consulate.

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by NC_Tigah on 11/16/12 at 4:48 am to Decatur

quote:Don't conflate the issue of whether there was a protest in Benghazi and the issue of whether the video and protests elsewhere was a catalyst for the attack. You know it can be an attack (without a protest before) and have the video as a factor at the same time, right?

Thread summary:

(1) Susan Rice was handed Talking Points 5 days after the terrorist attack, She parroted them as instructed. (2) Someone asked her to do that. We don't know who. (3) The Talking Points were written by someone supposedly in the CIA, but we do not know who. (4) The Talking Points were written by an organization that does not write talking points. We do not know why. (5) The Talking Points as written were completely false. That much we do know. (6) Widespread evidence establishes that officials through out the CIA and Government knew the Talking Points as written were false at the time Rice represented them as truthful. (7) Decatur feels Rice should be excused from culpability because all she did was read the completely false material she was given. (8) Susan Rice is an individual apparently incapable of independent rational thought or judgement.

It seems obvious, based on the unasked questions and numerous loose ends, that CBS really couldn't care less about journalism or truly investigating this story.

It also seems obvious if we are to believe Decatur, that Susan Rice is innocently gullible and easily manipulated. However, this must be an admirable trait as she is the potential next Sec of State.

quote:Even if this is so, the president knew about it right away and not only let her promote lies, he continued to spout those same lies Himself. It's shameful that you continue to cover for him.

What's shameful is the continued ignorance displayed by those who think they are owed an immediate explanation. We are talking about an event which could spark off an entire region. The President lied to the public in the days followings. Whoop d f'ing doo. SOMETIMES IT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO! What matters most is the administration not do something to further escalate the potential uprising.. The explanation of events can be done In a more appropriate time.

quote:Whoop d f'ing doo. SOMETIMES IT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO! What matters most is the administration not do something to further escalate the potential uprising.. The explanation of events can be done In a more appropriate time

So the ends justify the means and anything is fair to achieve a good result. Who defines what is a good result? Can I define my wealth as a good result and therefore justify any act to achieve increased wealth? How about we define getting rid of Saddam Hussein asa good result, doesn't that make it okay for Geroge W. Bush to have told any lies he may have desired to achieve that result?

Exactly when is Obama going to provide the explanation? The election has passed, we've learned more of the truth about events, and Obama even held a press conference. When do we get the explanation of why it was necessary to lie to the American people and the rest of the world? Are we supposed to wait for installment 3 of his autobiography since he is so busy dealing with other matters?

quote:What's shameful is the continued ignorance displayed by those who think they are owed an immediate explanation.

Our system of government is based on the informed consent of the governed. You can even look that one up.

quote:The President lied to the public in the days followings. Whoop d f'ing doo. SOMETIMES IT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO!

Been doing that since 2008 - to paraphrase Joe Biden, that's a big frickin' deal

quote:What matters most is the administration not do something to further escalate the potential uprising..

Yeah, maybe we should have just apologized for the film (that they really didn't know anything about, UNTIL we started apologizing for it)

quote: The explanation of events can be done In a more appropriate time.

We have to pass the bill before we can know what's in it... The more time we have to explain this means the easier we can make up lies, so people like Kickadouche can continue to and keep repeating the same BS

quote:I don't expect many Republicans of today to understand. He'll! If you can't figure out to nominate a presidential candidate, why would I expect the clueless to understand foreign relation dilemmas?

Because it wasn't a foreign relations dilemma. It was a re-election crisis to be avoided. Who exactly were we trying not to offend in foreign relations by not calling it a terrorist attack? No one except the voters in the United States who were being told how successful Obama's policies have been. A little inconvenient thing like a security lapse and terrorist attack on our consulate may have convinced some that all is not well with our foreign relations.

What other aspects of government has Obama been lying about? You can't be certain of anything he has told you at this point. We know he has lied about not raising taxes on those making less than $250K and cutting the deficit in half. What else has he lied about? If he would lie about our government do you think he would hesitate to lie about Mitt Romney?

Republicans understand plenty. What we can't understand is how gullible Democrats are willing to be.

quote:What matters most is the administration not do something to further escalate the potential uprising..

You don't think giving credence to a film and showing that others were allegedly so upset abut it that they successfully struck a US Embassy might have escalated similar real protests throughout the ME?

re: CBS obtains the CIA talking points given to Amb. RicePosted by Jbird on 11/16/12 at 7:17 am to LSUGrrrl

quote:You don't think giving credence to a film and showing that others were allegedly so upset abut it that they successfully struck a US Embassy might have escalated similar real protests throughout the ME?

Grrrl of course it can and may very well have, but kickadouche is more concerned about protecting the man.